What is this even supposed to mean? Agassi nearly beat Federer back at the U.S. Open in 2004 and he was 34

Click to expand...

It means at this stage of the game with Djokovic at the height of his prime and Federer long past his prime, Djokovic should always be beating Federer. That does not appear to be the case though does it?

It means at this stage of the game with Djokovic at the height of his prime and Federer long past his prime, Djokovic should always be beating Federer. That does not appear to be the case though does it?

Click to expand...

I could make the same absurd declaration about Federer.

"In Federer's prime, he shouldn't be losing sets to someone eleven years older than him....especially in a slam"

"In Federer's prime, he shouldn't be losing sets to someone eleven years older than him....especially in a slam"

But that didn't appear to be the case, did it?

Click to expand...

Losing sets? In Federer's prime from 2003 and on, how many MATCHES did Federer lose to the long past his prime Agassi? I will help you out, NONE. One cannot say the same for the Djokovic/Federer match-up in Djokovic's prime and Federer being long past his prime.

It means at this stage of the game with Djokovic at the height of his prime and Federer long past his prime, Djokovic should always be beating Federer. That does not appear to be the case though does it?

Click to expand...

So if Djoker is at the height of his prime now then that must mean he was pre-prime in 08 when he handed that straight set beat-down to Fed at the AO. (Cue the mono excuse)

For the record

a) Based on current resumes , Fed is a vastly superior player to Djoker . I don't think anyone can deny that.
b) I don't think either of these guys can ever 'humiliate' each other if they show up to play. All players have ups and downs and any lopsided result is more a result of having an off day with the opponent having a good day than anything else. Freaking Nishikori bageled Nole too, I don't think any sane person would argue that it means anything other than Djoker having an off day.
c) Fed is still the no2 player in the world. Has he declined - undoubtedly, no one can play at the highest level for 9 years and not decline. Is he grandpa Fed? Far from it, lots of athletes in equally/more physically demanding sports (soccer/basketball) are still going strong at 31. Of course only at this forum is going strong at an older age a bad thing to use in argument! Not having a steep decline should be a sign of greatness.

Losing sets? In Federer's prime from 2003 and on, how many MATCHES did Federer lose to the long past his prime Agassi? I will help you out, NONE. One cannot say the same for the Djokovic/Federer match-up in Djokovic's prime and Federer being long past his prime.

Click to expand...

Errr...my post was addressing sets. Sets lost to a person well-past their prime and eleven years older. Please don't change the subject.

Can you explain Federer's poor performance against such a person? Should a person like Federer in his prime be struggling against a 34-year-old Agassi?

Additionally, Djokovic beat Federer WELL before his prime back in 2007 while Federer was still in his prime.

Errr...my post was addressing sets. Sets lost to a person well-past their prime and eleven years older. Please don't change the subject.

Can you explain Federer's poor performance against such a person? Should a person like Federer in his prime be struggling against a 34-year-old Agassi?

Additionally, Djokovic beat Federer WELL before his prime back in 2007 while Federer was still in his prime.

Click to expand...

No, don't you change the subject. What difference does it make if prime Federer lost sets to a long past his prime Agassi? Agassi is one of the great players of all time, he was no slouch even in his thirties. But that is not the issue, the issue is prime Federer never lost a MATCH to old Agassi the way prime Djokovic has lost matches to old Federer. Got it now?

No, don't you change the subject. What difference does it make if prime Federer lost sets to a long past his prime Agassi? Agassi is one of the great players of all time, he was no slouch even in his thirties. But that is not the issue, the issue is prime Federer never lost a MATCH to old Agassi the way prime Djokovic has lost matches to old Federer. Got it now?

Click to expand...

If Agassi is one of the greatest players of all time (who was no slouch in his 30s), then who is Federer? LOL

Agassi did not beat Federer. Federer bageled Djokovic. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference, Einstein

Twist it any way you like, Agassi never beat prime-Federer. ******* bageled 25 year-old Prime-Djokovic on his best surface

Click to expand...

A match is worthy of discussion only if Federer loses? OK then. I'm not as narrow-minded and I think there is more to tennis than just a W/L.a

Additionally, Nishikori bageled Djokovic last year, which was when Djokovic was at his absolute peak. Why aren't you making a big deal about that, too? Is Nishikori as good as Federer? Or maybe (just maybe) you are making too big of a deal out of bagels. Maybe you need to stop putting so much emphasis on scorelines.

Agassi did not beat Federer. Federer bageled Djokovic. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference, Einstein

Twist it any way you like, Agassi never beat prime-Federer. ******* bageled 25 year-old Prime-Djokovic on his best surface

Click to expand...

Umm, surely you mean Fed's best surface. Fast HC is Fed's best surface, not Nole's as evidenced by his record at Cinci.

Anyway to continue trolling , what about the beatdown peak Fed received from injured Kuerten at the FO in 2004 (6-4, 6-4. 6-4) . I don't recall Djokovic ever being beat this badly in his peak at a slam(assuming 2010-2014 = peak for Nole).

Fed did bagel Djokovic.
You folks have to know something was wrong with Djokovic.
Even the best players have down days, everything goes wrong or they're just plain tired.

Djokovic beat Fed at the WTF, Fed wasn't at his best in that one and was lucky to make it that far, a players form will have ups and downs. Not a big deal.

Back to the OP, Djokovic is very clutch. I don't really think it's mental toughness though.
Djokovic has a good philosophy in that he'll just give it his best shot when he's behind and doesn't seem to worry about the loss.

For many players it's the fear of losing money, the match or whatever that takes over their game.

Fed did bagel Djokovic.
You folks have to know something was wrong with Djokovic.
Even the best players have down days, everything goes wrong or they're just plain tired.

Djokovic beat Fed at the WTF, Fed wasn't at his best in that one and was lucky to make it that far, a players form will have ups and downs. Not a big deal.

Back to the OP, Djokovic is very clutch. I don't really think it's mental toughness though.
Djokovic has a good philosophy in that he'll just give it his best shot when he's behind and doesn't seem to worry about the loss.

For many players it's the fear of losing money, the match or whatever that takes over their game.

Click to expand...

Well said. Djoker also has this uncanny ability to paint the lines with his returns when he's down just like Sampras had this ability to Serve down the T when he was down.

Fed was pushing Nole all over the court and pushing him back behind the baseline as well. Fed was controlling he match but when it came time to put the last nail in the coffin, he put it in his own coffin but going for too much too soon. I think if he would have shown a little more patience when he was up 3-0 and then 5-3 and with set points in both the first and second set, he would have won the set. Most of the time whoever keeps the ball in play without going going for too much, that person will almost always win the point. Its true that Nole will come up with some outrageous winners at times but he actually has been missing more than making when going for those shots. It is his ability to cover the court and return almost any shot that gives him the advantage most of the time. In my opinion that is why he has trouble with Murray at times. Murray is in the same league as far as being able to track down almost any shot hit by his opponent. Murray confidence has grown since taking on Lendl as his coach and if it continues he will be beating Nole, Fed and Nadal once he returns on a regular basis.

By the way after the match Federer said that he played as well as he could, maybe he was telling the truth!

If Agassi is one of the greatest players of all time (who was no slouch in his 30s), then who is Federer? LOL

A match is worthy of discussion only if Federer loses? OK then. I'm not as narrow-minded and I think there is more to tennis than just a W/L.a

Additionally, Nishikori bageled Djokovic last year, which was when Djokovic was at his absolute peak. Why aren't you making a big deal about that, too? Is Nishikori as good as Federer? Or maybe (just maybe) you are making too big of a deal out of bagels. Maybe you need to stop putting so much emphasis on scorelines.

Click to expand...

I guess that's even more embarrassing than being bageled by *******. Thanks for reminding me

And I'm saying you're really clutching at straws if you're comparing Federer's 5-set win to Djokovic eating a bagel in a 2-set beat-down.

Umm, surely you mean Fed's best surface. Fast HC is Fed's best surface, not Nole's as evidenced by his record at Cinci.

Anyway to continue trolling , what about the beatdown peak Fed received from injured Kuerten at the FO in 2004 (6-4, 6-4. 6-4) . I don't recall Djokovic ever being beat this badly in his peak at a slam(assuming 2010-2014 = peak for Nole).

Click to expand...

Federer's best surface is Grass. Or Indoor Hards. Atleast relative to the field. Djokovic's best is Outdoor Hards. ******* bageled prime-Djokovic on Djokovic's best surface

About the Kuerten loss, well, Federer lost a match he should have won but he has an excuse. None of the sets was truly lopsided and the match was being played on Federer's worst surface and Kuerten's best. Not to mention, Kuerten is one of the Clay GOATs. If there was ever a match where prime-Federer was humiliated on his best surface, let me know

Yes, so embarrassing that no one remembers (or even cares). You must be working from a different definition of "embarrassing".

They're comparable because in each match, the one in his prime struggled tremendously against the much older player. That this simple fact is lost on you astounds me.

LOL, why limit it to best surface? Because Fed was bageled on clay in a slam final while such a thing has NEVER happened to Djokovic even on HIS worse surface during his prime? Hmmmm....

Click to expand...

So it isn't embarrassing if... people don't remember it? And you cared enough to remind me.

The fact that you place a player beating the other player on his best surface in the same realm as another player being bageled on his best surface is what's astounding. Would you seriously be more embarassed about winning a match than about being bageled? :-?

I'm not limiting it to best surfaces, I'm making it a factor. Besides, even Federer was never bageled in his prime on any surface in any match. Heck, prime-Federer bageled Nadal on Clay. Unlike prime-Djokovic who is being bageled on his best surface : outdoor Hards :lol:

So it isn't embarrassing if... people don't remember it? And you cared enough to remind me.

The fact that you place a player beating the other player on his best surface in the same realm as another player being bageled on his best surface is what's astounding. Would you seriously be more embarassed about winning a match than about being bageled? :-?

I'm not limiting it to best surfaces, I'm making it a factor. Besides, even Federer was never bageled in his prime on any surface in any match. Heck, prime-Federer bageled Nadal on Clay. Unlike prime-Djokovic who is being bageled on his best surface : outdoor Hards :lol:

Click to expand...

Yes but that doesn't change the fact the djokovic has never been bageled in a grand slam final the way Fed was humiliated at FO 08. In fact prime Nole has never been in a grandslam match where he has won 4 games or less. Actually I don't think even pre prime Nole has probably won at least 5 games in all his grand slam matches.

Yes but that doesn't change the fact the djokovic has never been bageled in a grand slam final the way Fed was humiliated at FO 08. In fact prime Nole has never been in a grandslam match where he has won 4 games or less. Actually I don't think even pre prime Nole has probably won at least 5 games in all his grand slam matches.

Click to expand...

Oh, so now it's Grand Slams, eh? Prime-Federer never lost to 30+ players at Slams. Has any Federer? :lol: ******* bageled Djokovic. Nadal bageled past-prime-Federer on Clay and somehow that's a crowning achievement for Djokovic

Fact : ******* bageled Prime-Djokovic on Djokovic's best surface. That is humiliating. Being bageled by the Clay-GOAT on Clay when you're past your prime? Yes, humiliating, but nowhere near the same as being bageled on your best surface by a 31 year-old :lol:

Oh, so now it's Grand Slams, eh? Prime-Federer never lost to 30+ players at Slams. Has any Federer? :lol: ******* bageled Djokovic. Nadal bageled past-prime-Federer on Clay and somehow that's a crowning achievement for Djokovic

Fact : ******* bageled Prime-Djokovic on Djokovic's best surface. That is humiliating. Being bageled by the Clay-GOAT on Clay when you're past your prime? Yes, humiliating, but nowhere near the same as being bageled on your best surface by a 31 year-old :lol:

Umm, surely you mean Fed's best surface. Fast HC is Fed's best surface, not Nole's as evidenced by his record at Cinci.

Anyway to continue trolling , what about the beatdown peak Fed received from injured Kuerten at the FO in 2004 (6-4, 6-4. 6-4) . I don't recall Djokovic ever being beat this badly in his peak at a slam(assuming 2010-2014 = peak for Nole).

Click to expand...

Djokovic was beaten in straights in Wimbledon 2010 by Berdych.

The point many miss or continue to ignore is how the surfaces also lined up against Roger. He didn't have fast surfaces like what Pete had in his 30s to enhance his attacking skills. Pete made consecutive finals at US open in 30s but Roger had to fight on slow surface and still he was on match points on either times against Novak Djokovic when he lost in 2010 and 2011.

People were complaining when just ONE surface appeared fast, well, am talking about Madrid blue clay. However no one has issues with ALL the surfaces being slowed down. They have slowed down all the surfaces and took away weapons from attacking players. Still Roger is doing good. Sadly that point is lost .

The point many miss or continue to ignore is how the surfaces also lined up against Roger. He didn't have fast surfaces like what Pete had in his 30s to enhance his attacking skills. Pete made consecutive finals at US open in 30s but Roger had to fight on slow surface and still he was on match points on either times against Novak Djokovic when he lost in 2010 and 2011.

People were complaining when just ONE surface appeared fast, well, am talking about Madrid blue clay. However no one has issues with ALL the surfaces being slowed down. They have slowed down all the surfaces and took away weapons from attacking players. Still Roger is doing good. Sadly that point is lost .

Click to expand...

Are still tyring to make excuses lol NO ONE is buying what your selling, dubai is fast conditions and novak beat fed there in the final too.

The point many miss or continue to ignore is how the surfaces also lined up against Roger. He didn't have fast surfaces like what Pete had in his 30s to enhance his attacking skills. Pete made consecutive finals at US open in 30s but Roger had to fight on slow surface and still he was on match points on either times against Novak Djokovic when he lost in 2010 and 2011.

People were complaining when just ONE surface appeared fast, well, am talking about Madrid blue clay. However no one has issues with ALL the surfaces being slowed down. They have slowed down all the surfaces and took away weapons from attacking players. Still Roger is doing good. Sadly that point is lost .

Click to expand...

Childish taunting aside, I don't think any one doesn't seriously admire what Fed has been able to do. His longevity and his ability to fight back to get the no 1 ranking are remarkable. I am almost certain the other guys will have a much sharper decline than Fed and I can't see any scenario where Feds records are broken.

That being said , I think the surface argument is both true and false . The lack o faster surfaces may have benefitted djoko/Nadal/Murray the most but it has also benefited Fed. Simply because it has prevented the development of attacking 1st strike players who can cause upsets. And it has put an emphasis on stamina which a lot of young players don't develop until later.

I'm totally in favor of more variety and speeding up the USo etc I'm just not a huge fan of 'some fans' using the age/surface excuse all the time to discredit opponent wins.

Have not read the entire thread... But at setpoints Federer went for shots. He did not execute you can say, but had he played more percentage, people would have been after him also. Federer must really be bugging some people, well ok...

Are still tyring to make excuses lol NO ONE is buying what your selling, dubai is fast conditions and novak beat fed there in the final too.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I am not here to make excuses for Roger Federer. His resume speaks for himself not some random unknown cyber warrior in a Tennis forum :wink:

Don't assume too much mate. I never said Novak cannot beat Roger at fast surfaces. Fast surfaces make the players, read Roger Federer, more susceptible to upsets from big hitters also.

I only said slowing down of all surfaces have affected Roger more when it comes to the big four as he is the most attacking player among them. It wouldn't be easy to defend on surfaces where you can hardly put a racquet to the ball.

Childish taunting aside, I don't think any one doesn't seriously admire what Fed has been able to do. His longevity and his ability to fight back to get the no 1 ranking are remarkable. I am almost certain the other guys will have a much sharper decline than Fed and I can't see any scenario where Feds records are broken.

That being said , I think the surface argument is both true and false . The lack o faster surfaces may have benefitted djoko/Nadal/Murray the most but it has also benefited Fed. Simply because it has prevented the development of attacking 1st strike players who can cause upsets. And it has put an emphasis on stamina which a lot of young players don't develop until later.

I'm totally in favor of more variety and speeding up the USo etc I'm just not a huge fan of 'some fans' using the age/surface excuse all the time to discredit opponent wins.

Click to expand...

I can understand your point

Well, Kragster, I, despite being a fanatic Roger Federer fan, have never posted even once that Roger is the GOAT. I always ,that word is a disservice to all the greats who played different opponents at different time under different conditions. I am NOT obsessed with records also. Stefan Edberg used to be my favorite player even though I used to like Pete Sampras and Sampras was breaking all records. I like Llodra and the way he plays. The other day I saw his match with Isner, and really felt sad that none of the surfaces in the tour is conducive to his style of play, serve and volley. I want variety not from Roger point of view. Roger would be around ONLY for a couple of years more.

Firstly, I am not here to make excuses for Roger Federer. His resume speaks for himself not some random unknown cyber warrior in a Tennis forum :wink:

Don't assume too much mate. I never said Novak cannot beat Roger at fast surfaces. Fast surfaces make the players, read Roger Federer, more susceptible to upsets from big hitters also.

I only said slowing down of all surfaces have affected Roger more when it comes to the big four as he is the most attacking player among them. It wouldn't be easy to defend on surfaces where you can hardly put a racquet to the ball.

Click to expand...

So you want super fast courts with no tennis skill required so karlovic and the like can do well PLEASE, it was super fast in the 90s and was sending us to sleep now you see shoting making and not one two punch tennis.

When verdasco played Raonic last year and got served off the court he said "this is not tennis" and at that time Raonic was less developed than he is now. Is that what you what big servers without skill or touch knocking out shotmakers well DO YOU??

So you want super fast courts with no tennis skill required so karlovic and the like can do well PLEASE, it was super fast in the 90s and was sending us to sleep now you see shoting making and not one two punch tennis.

When verdasco played Raonic last year and got served off the court he said "this is not tennis" and at that time Raonic was less developed than he is now. Is that what you what big servers without skill or touch knocking out shotmakers well DO YOU??

Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to say that super fast courts mean no tennis skills. I don't think anyone wants all or even a majority of courts to be like that but it would be nice to have more variety. I used to be a huge Sampras fan and sometimes I loved to watch him serve 4 aces to finish a game. Even with Djokovic sometimes I like to see him play incredible defense but sometimes I like him to just swing for the fences.

If we can keep the physicality of the modern game but also speed up a couple of tournaments (USO and a couple of masters) , then we will have a pretty good balance of everything. Then we would have

USO - Fast
Wimby - Medium Fast
AO - Medium
RG - Slow

With the Masters if we speed up Paris/WTF, we have Rome/MC (slow) , Madrid (fast clay - need to figure out the slipperiness issue), IW/Miami/Toronto (medium) and then we could have Cincy/Paris/wTF fast. Maybe replace one of those HC masters with a grass masters and we would be perfect.